Tag Archive for Stanley McChrystal

Rich Lowry’s Obama lovefest

June 23, 2010 Media No comments

Read this and gag.

I’m not sure how Obama could have handled this any better. He was genuinely graceful about McChrystal and his explanation of why he had to go made perfect sense. He called for unity within his adminstration in pursuing the war and sounded quite stalwart about both the war and about the strategy. More importantly, his choice of Petraeus as a replacement for McChrystal is a brilliant move: He gets a heavy-weight, an unassailable expert in this kind of warfare, and someone who presumably can step in pretty seamlessly. He also picked someone who has expressed (very diplomatic) misgivings about the July 2011 deadline and who will have the clout and credibility to tell the president that he can’t afford to go down in troops when July comes, should circumstances warrant. (It should also be noted that this is a step down for Petraeus and he can’t relish directly managing another war — that he will do so speaks to his selfless patriotism.) In short,Obama has made the most of a rotten situation.

That’s not Rachel Maddow. Nor is it Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. Nope. That’s Rich Lowry, the supposedly conservative editor of National Review, with misguided, undeserving, vomit-inducing praise for President Obama’s handling of the General McChrystal situation.

Rich Lowry: not a conservative. He is destroying William Buckley’s vision of National Review.

Gen. McChrystal out, Gen. David Petraeus in. What does it mean for the Afghan war?

June 23, 2010 Government, Military, Podcast, Policy, War, World No comments

On Conservative Beacon Podcast with Josh Price:

General Stanley McChrystal is out in Afghanistan with General David Petraeus taking his place. But here is the key question: Does this personnel change alter our strategy for the war?

The answer is no. Tune in to Conservative Beacon Podcast to hear why:

Play

Podcast: Download

Gen. Stanley McChrystal should be fired, but not for comments in Rolling Stone

June 22, 2010 Government, Military, Podcast, War, World One comment

On Conservative Beacon Podcast with Josh Price:

General Stanley McChrystal should be fired, but not for insubordination based on comments in Rolling Stone as Democrats , the state-controlled media, and even some Republicans want. He should be relieved from his duties for his politically correct philosophy on warfare.

UPDATE: Time magazine’s Joe Klein tells CNN that, according to an unnamed source, Gen. McChrystal has submitted his letter of resignation to President Obama. The ball is now in Obama’s court. He can choose to accept or reject McChrystal’s resignation.

Stay tuned.

Play

Podcast: Download

Mexican president says Arizona immigration law is discrimnatory

April 27, 2010 Business and Economy, Military, Podcast, War, World One comment

On today’s podcast:

Play

Podcast: Download

Nancy Pelosi trying to pass health care reform without an actual vote; James Edwards discusses the effectiveness of E-Verify

March 16, 2010 Government, Interviews, Podcast, Policy No comments

Sinclair Lewis was wrong on two fronts: It is happening here and; America is transitioning from a representative republic to a dictatorship powered by not one individual but a political ideology–neo-liberalism (socialism). I write this because President Obama and congressional Democrats are disregarding the will of the People by trying to find any way to force health care reform down our throats, including Nancy Pelosi considering passing the bill without an actual vote. In other words, procedural dictatorship.

More political correctness from General Stanley McChrystal. Scaling back the number and scope of air strikes in Afghanistan apparently isn’t reducing civilian casualties enough, so now he’s reining in special operations forces to further reduce civilian casualties. While Afghan civilian casualties are being reduced, they’re done so at the expense of the lives of American and coalition forces.

James R. Edwards from the Center for Immigration Studies joins me to discuss E-Verify and its effectiveness.

Play

Podcast: Download

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on our military’s politically correct Rules of Engagement

February 16, 2010 Interviews, Military, Podcast, War, World 2 comments

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters discusses the politically correct Afghan strategy and the suicidal Rules of Engagement our military and civilian leaders have sent our servicemen and women into battle with.

He’s in agreement with me that Taliban so-called “reconciliation” is nothing more than bribery. He also describes our counterinsurgency strategy as “touch-feely.” He’s spot on.

Play
Play

Podcast: Download

Taliban Chief Hiding in Populated City to Avoid Predator Drone Attacks

November 20, 2009 War One comment

U.S. intelligence officials believe that Taliban leader Mullah Omar has moved to the Pakistani port city of Karachi in order to avoid Predator drone strikes.

Why would Omar believe moving to a more populated area increase his security against drone attacks? Because under Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s approach and his prescribed Rules of Engagement (ROE) for our military–unmanned aerial vehicles included–are not permitted to fire on terrorists targets when civilians are present.

The enemy knows this and is using it to his advantage.

Do you now understand why I’m not like every other right-wing blogger who automatically took McChrystal’s side in his battle with Chairman Obama for more troops?

McChrystal’s ROE are not only hampering and getting our troops killed, they are aiding and being exploited by the enemy.

The enemy isn’t stupid like American liberals, folks; he’s using our obsession with political correctness to his advantage.

If Obama’s So Concerned with His ‘AfPak’ Strategy…

September 28, 2009 Media, War One comment

Why has he spoken to General Stanley McChrystal, our commander in charge in Afghanistan, once in the last 70 days?

The military general credited for capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq says he has only spoken to President Obama once since taking command of Afghanistan.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.

“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.

“That is correct,” the general replied.

Of course that wonderful so-called journalist David Martin let it be after McChrystal responded with “That is correct.” Why not probe that a little more? Ask the him if he’s disappointed by that, or if he feels he needs to talk with chairman Obama more frequently?

Those questions would have been asked if President Bush was in office. Martin would have done his best to paint a picture of Bush as being disengaged with the war–out of touch with his commanders. But because it’s Obama it will be swept under the rug.

Speaking of Obama, at the end of Thursday he will have spent  more time lobbying for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics than he has speaking with Stanley McChrystal about the war in Afghanistan. Think about that.

Does that put things in perspective for you?

UPDATE: This just hit me: Obama has apparently spent more time with David Letterman than he has with Stanley McChrystal.

Is it starting to crystalize in your brain just who you elected as president? You elected a communist concerned only with his celebrity, and Marxist agenda.

Pentagon Wants Public Relations (PR) Men as Generals

August 17, 2009 Government, Military, War 2 comments

By Josh Price

Last week I wrote about the devolution of military leadership here in America. To make my point, I conducted a very basic compare/contrast analysis of World World War II and Cold War hero General Curtis LeMay and the current commander in charge in Afghanstan, General Stanley McChrystal (read that analysis here).

My main point in that piece was how the military now places more emphasis on public relations campaigns and saving the lives of foreign “innocent” civilians than on saving the lives of its own servicemen and women and attaining victory. This point was validated when I read an article outlining how and why Stanley McChrystal was put in charge of coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Gates and Mullen had been having doubts about McKiernan since the beginning of the year. They regarded him as too languid, too old-school and too removed from Washington. He lacked the charisma and political savvy that Gen. David H. Petraeus brought to the Iraq war.

Mullen traveled to Kabul in April to confront McKiernan. The chairman hoped the commander would opt to save face and retire, but he refused. Not only had he not disobeyed orders, he believed he was doing what Gates and Mullen wanted.

You’re going to have to fire me, he told Mullen.

Two weeks later, Gates did. It was the first sacking of a wartime theater commander since President Harry S. Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951 for opposing his Korean War policy.

“There are those who would have waited six more months” in order to have a less abrupt transition, Mullen said in an interview. “I couldn’t. I’m losing kids and I couldn’t sleep at night. I have an unbounded sense of urgency to get this right.”

Oh, make me gag. Spare me the nonsense about you not being able to sleep at night because we’re losing servicemen and women, Admiral Mullen. If you were that concerned about their lives you wouldn’t have gone along with the decision to force the  Navy to take a “hail and query” (you know, ask the enemy ship if we can come aboard) strategy during the recent North Korean ship issue, nor would you have replaced Gen. McKiernan with someone who restricted the use of air power (one of the only facets of our power working) in Afghanistan!

The decision was not discussed at length within the White House but was endorsed by Obama. It reflects a view among senior Pentagon officials that top generals need to be as adept at working Washington as they are the battlefield, that the conflict in Afghanistan requires a leader who can also win the confidence of Congress and the American public.

“Blame General Petraeus,” a senior Defense Department official said. “He redefined during his tour in Iraq what it means to be a commanding general. He broke the mold. The traditional responsibilities were not enough anymore. You had to be adroit at international politics. You had to be a skilled diplomat. You had to be savvy with the press, and you had to be a really sophisticated leader of a large organization. When you judge McKiernan by Petraeus’s standards, he looked old-school by comparison.” (my emphasis)

Requiring our military leaders to be skilled diplomats and “savvy” with the press are two of the reasons why we aren’t winning the War on Islamofascism.

The fact is Gen. McChrystal was chosen to replace Gen. David McKiernan because he was more adept at public relations and dealing with Congress, not because he was a superior military commander or leader. I would suggest that McChrystal was also chosen due to his ties with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael “Hail and Query” Mullen. Admiral Mullen, as Michael Savage correctly points out, is nothing but a PR man in military dress.

If being proficient in public relations is the main criterion we’re now looking for in our military leaders we may as well admit defeat right now.

Gen. McKiernan may, indeed, have needed to be removed, but the justification given by Admiral Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates should scare the bejeezus out of everyone who loves and admires what the U.S. military used to be.

The fact of the matter is that I couldn’t care less if our military leaders are good at giving speeches or wooing D.C. socialites at the nightly cocktail party. No, I want a blunt, caustic, feared person who values victory above good PR. I want military leaders who don’t care if they’re liked by the media or members of congress.

I want military leaders who are unwavering in their quest for victory; who have the killer instinct necessary to win any war.

From General Curtis LeMay to General Stanley McChrystal

August 11, 2009 Government, Interviews, Military, War No comments

By Josh Price

images

general-stanley-mcchrystal

The new U.S. commander in charge of our operations in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, recently gave an Wall Street Journal in which he stated that the Taliban are winning the front in Afghanistan:

“It’s a very aggressive enemy right now,” Gen. McChrystal said in the interview Saturday at his office in a fortified NATO compound in Kabul. “We’ve got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It’s hard work.”

This certainly doesn’t come as a surprise to me. Given that we’re now admitting we’re losing this front, wouldn’t it make sense to step up our aggression–you know, be more forceful? Well not according to Chairman Obama, SecDef Gates, or Gen. McChrystal. Want to know what their new brilliant strategy for turning the tide in Afghanistan is?

Deploy more U.S. forces for the singular purpose of protecting Afghan civilians. These new forces aren’t going to Afghanistan to kill the enemy–the Islamofascists. Nope. They are being used instead as overqualified security forces.

the commander [Gen. McChrystal] offered a preview of the strategic assessment he is to deliver to Washington later this month, saying the troop shifts are designed to better protect Afghan civilians from rising levels of Taliban violence and intimidation. The coming redeployments are the clearest manifestation to date of Gen. McChrystal’s strategy for Afghanistan, which puts a premium on safeguarding the Afghan population rather than hunting down militants.

Read that last sentence again. If you’re a sane, logical person you will come to the obvious conclusion that this new “strategy” is going to result only in more U.S. casualties, not victory in Afghanistan.

This shouldn’t have surprised me because it was Gen. McChrystal who, in his first few days in charge of the Afghan front, tightened the use of air power just days before the Taliban and al-Qaeda admitted that our Predator drones were having a devastating affect on their ability to plan and carry out attacks. Unbelievable.

As I read McChrystal’s strategy I began to think about how even our military, particularly our military leaders, have devolved over the last 40-50 years. We have gone from genuine war heroes like General Curtis LeMay to posers (in my opinion) like General McChrystal who seemingly care more about the lives of foreign citizens than about the lives of their own forces.

So what will win the war in Afghanistan? The resurgence of military leaders with the killer instinct like Gen. LeMay. I knew only a little about Gen. LeMay before I read Warren Kozak’s fantastic biography of him. We need a Gen. LeMay leading the War on Islamofascism. Why? For many reasons, but chiefly:

  • LeMay did not believe in proportionate response or surgical warfare;
  • He believed that a nation should think long and hard before making the decision to go to war, but once that decision was made every weapon in the nation’s arsenal should be on the table for use;
  • He recognized that in war some so-called “innocent” civilians aren’t so innocent after all;
  • He knew civilian casualties were a part of war;
  • He valued the lives of his crew and his fellow citizens more than than those of the enemy;
  • He advanced the concept of peace through strength.

Ask yourself this question: Do you believe that our military leaders of today share LeMay’s philosophy? I’ll give you my answer. I believe there are some who do, but they aren’t located in the Joint Chiefs. That’s the problem.

We’ve gone from the aggression and vengeance  (two necessary characteristics of military personnel)of Curtis LeMay to the passivity and placating of Stanley McChrystal.